Gentlemen, what do you think of Heavy Storm?

[Exiro]

A horrible abomination of 3/0. Admitting it should be banned on creation of new cards is admitting it's broken. Admitting it's broken means it needs to be at the number that minimizes it while preserving it's niche in promoting skill. AKA one.

 

Heavy Storm' date=' by existing, makes a threat to the opponent that should prevent him from overextending. If this threat does not exist, the game will be simplified to "Whoever draws the most answers to the opponent's cards will most likely win". This reduces skill as a factor in the game.

 

Personally, I think that what we currently have is slightly overpowered in punishing overextending. It is possible to be careful with s/ts right now and just set 1 of them so that Heavy Storm cannot result in advantage loss, but OTKs can still easily occur, making it sometimes important to set 2 BTHs instead of one, for example. If this game wasn't so fast paced overall (a clear field can easily result in the loss of a fourth of one's starting life points by a single attack), playing this carefully would be reasonable, this is simply not the case. Setting 2 backrow cards on an empty field should not be punished.

[/quote']

 

...That sounds like you're agreeing with me in saying it should go to one.

 

The first paragraph explains why it should not be at 0 without replacement.

The second paragraph explains why it'd actually be better at 0, as long as we got a replacement.

 

When did I say anything about preferring Heavy Storm limited?

[-Griffin]

Exiro, I agree that Heavy Storm is overpowering when played because of the advantage it can bring and the way it can help to set up OTKs, but I strongly feel the mentality is needed as you said, so it would need some sort of replacement.

 

Can you design a card which would discourage huge backrows of counters that slow down the game but doesn't ruin the game by being overpowered for us? To show us how you believe the situation would be best handled? Anything much less powerful wouldn't seem to have the same effect on mentality as our current card.

[Exiro]

Exiro' date=' I agree that Heavy Storm is overpowering when played because of the advantage it can bring and the way it can help to set up OTKs, but I strongly feel the mentality is needed as you said, so it would need some sort of replacement.

 

Can you design a card which would discourage huge backrows of counters that slow down the game but doesn't ruin the game by being overpowered for us? To show us how you believe the situation would be best handled? Anything much less powerful wouldn't seem to have the same effect on mentality as our current card.

[/quote']

 

I've made that a long time ago.

 

[align=center]

Thunder Warp

Normal Spell

Send all Spell and Trap Cards you control to the Graveyard to destroy all Spell and Trap Cards your opponent controls.

[/align]

[Dad]

Exiro' date=' I agree that Heavy Storm is overpowering when played because of the advantage it can bring and the way it can help to set up OTKs, but I strongly feel the mentality is needed as you said, so it would need some sort of replacement.

 

Can you design a card which would discourage huge backrows of counters that slow down the game but doesn't ruin the game by being overpowered for us? To show us how you believe the situation would be best handled? Anything much less powerful wouldn't seem to have the same effect on mentality as our current card.

[/quote']

 

I've made that a long time ago.

 

Thunder Warp

Normal Spell

Send all Spell and Trap Cards you control to the Graveyard to destroy all Spell and Trap Cards your opponent controls.

 

Similar to LV. And you could always just set something chainable, like MST.

 

xD

[GenzoTheHarpist]

A horrible abomination of 3/0. Admitting it should be banned on creation of new cards is admitting it's broken. Admitting it's broken means it needs to be at the number that minimizes it while preserving it's niche in promoting skill. AKA one.

 

Heavy Storm' date=' by existing, makes a threat to the opponent that should prevent him from overextending. If this threat does not exist, the game will be simplified to "Whoever draws the most answers to the opponent's cards will most likely win". This reduces skill as a factor in the game.

 

Personally, I think that what we currently have is slightly overpowered in punishing overextending. It is possible to be careful with s/ts right now and just set 1 of them so that Heavy Storm cannot result in advantage loss, but OTKs can still easily occur, making it sometimes important to set 2 BTHs instead of one, for example. If this game wasn't so fast paced overall (a clear field can easily result in the loss of a fourth of one's starting life points by a single attack), playing this carefully would be reasonable, this is simply not the case. Setting 2 backrow cards on an empty field should not be punished.

[/quote']

 

...That sounds like you're agreeing with me in saying it should go to one.

 

The first paragraph explains why it should not be at 0 without replacement.

The second paragraph explains why it'd actually be better at 0, as long as we got a replacement.

 

When did I say anything about preferring Heavy Storm limited?

 

Needs to go to zero + can't go to zero = goes to one

[Exiro]

Exiro' date=' I agree that Heavy Storm is overpowering when played because of the advantage it can bring and the way it can help to set up OTKs, but I strongly feel the mentality is needed as you said, so it would need some sort of replacement.

 

Can you design a card which would discourage huge backrows of counters that slow down the game but doesn't ruin the game by being overpowered for us? To show us how you believe the situation would be best handled? Anything much less powerful wouldn't seem to have the same effect on mentality as our current card.

[/quote']

 

I've made that a long time ago.

 

Thunder Warp

Normal Spell

Send all Spell and Trap Cards you control to the Graveyard to destroy all Spell and Trap Cards your opponent controls.

 

Similar to LV. And you could always just set something chainable, like MST.

 

xD

 

Except you can't. It's a cost to send them.

 

 

A horrible abomination of 3/0. Admitting it should be banned on creation of new cards is admitting it's broken. Admitting it's broken means it needs to be at the number that minimizes it while preserving it's niche in promoting skill. AKA one.

 

Heavy Storm' date=' by existing, makes a threat to the opponent that should prevent him from overextending. If this threat does not exist, the game will be simplified to "Whoever draws the most answers to the opponent's cards will most likely win". This reduces skill as a factor in the game.

 

Personally, I think that what we currently have is slightly overpowered in punishing overextending. It is possible to be careful with s/ts right now and just set 1 of them so that Heavy Storm cannot result in advantage loss, but OTKs can still easily occur, making it sometimes important to set 2 BTHs instead of one, for example. If this game wasn't so fast paced overall (a clear field can easily result in the loss of a fourth of one's starting life points by a single attack), playing this carefully would be reasonable, this is simply not the case. Setting 2 backrow cards on an empty field should not be punished.

[/quote']

 

...That sounds like you're agreeing with me in saying it should go to one.

 

The first paragraph explains why it should not be at 0 without replacement.

The second paragraph explains why it'd actually be better at 0, as long as we got a replacement.

 

When did I say anything about preferring Heavy Storm limited?

 

Needs to go to zero + can't go to zero = goes to one

 

Not really.

[The Dark One]

For a long time, I used to subscribe to the Heavy@1 logic. Yeah, I know all about how it supposedly promotes skill and all that.

 

But as Exiro said, it nonetheless is a broken card and, if a fairer replacement could be tendered, it should be banned.

 

Now, explain to me why Malevolent Catastrophe isn't sufficient to fulfill that replacement niche?

 

Yeah, it's slow enough not to be played right now, but imagine if heavy was banned: People would start setting a hell of a lot more. This would itself slow down the game drastically. Everyone suffers. Then some "genius" player somewhere would start running a few copies of malevolent catastrophe. This would see widespread adaption and the meta would fix itsef around the new card.

 

Problem solved.

 

Certainly, Heavy is a hard card to pin down, but I think it's role is already sufficiently usurped.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

If heavy was banned, people would not set a lot more, not without many other dramatic banlist changes at least.

[The Dark One]

If heavy was banned' date=' people would not set a lot more, not without many other dramatic banlist changes at least.

[/quote']

 

If this was the case then there is still no reason to keep Heavy around. So regardless, my logic is sound.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Not really, since the cards that take it's place are themselves banworthy.

[Fraz]

Now' date=' explain to me why Malevolent Catastrophe isn't sufficient to fulfill that replacement niche?

[/quote']

 

Because my stealth bird, level limit, messenger of peace, grav bind, des lacooda, wave motion cannon deck doesn't need to attack?

[Polycarp]

Now' date=' explain to me why Malevolent Catastrophe isn't sufficient to fulfill that replacement niche?

[/quote']

 

Because my stealth bird, level limit, messenger of peace, grav bind, des lacooda, wave motion cannon deck doesn't need to attack?

 

So then I use Breaker, MST, Dust Tornado, or Trunade+Card Destruction =D Seriously though, we have enough decent replacements for Heavy to be banned

[BehindTheMask]

http://forum.yugiohcardmaker.net/thread-157112-post-3021585.html#pid3021585

 

/topic.

[GenzoTheHarpist]

Now' date=' explain to me why Malevolent Catastrophe isn't sufficient to fulfill that replacement niche?

[/quote']

 

Because my stealth bird, level limit, messenger of peace, grav bind, des lacooda, wave motion cannon deck doesn't need to attack?

 

So then I use Breaker, MST, Dust Tornado, or Trunade+Card Destruction =D Seriously though, we have enough decent replacements for Heavy to be banned

 

One of those is banworthy, and the other ones leave overextension unpunished by being simple +0s or worse.

[The Dark One]

Now' date=' explain to me why Malevolent Catastrophe isn't sufficient to fulfill that replacement niche?

[/quote']

 

Because my stealth bird, level limit, messenger of peace, grav bind, des lacooda, wave motion cannon deck doesn't need to attack?

 

Except your deck type isn't overextending by having one copy of messenger of peace or gravity bind and one copy of wave motion cannon down on the field.

 

And even if your deck were to add one or two sets to the mix, it can easily be written off as the unique playstyle of the decktype.

 

Furthermore, coming from someone who DOES play such a deck, attacks are, if rare, not nonexistent. This forces you to be conscious of your decision to attack for fear of destroying necessary burn cards.

 

Lastly, such a deck will always be outside the meta, as the second it becomes meta, it is destroyed by the massive pool of S/T destruction cards we have available, as well as the quite large selection of anti-burn cards we have available.

 

Thus, not a problem regardless.

 

 

Now, let's put that aside and look at, say: Zombie. Lightsworn? How about Blackwings? How does Malevolent not manage to serve the same purpose?

[Fraz]

Now' date=' explain to me why Malevolent Catastrophe isn't sufficient to fulfill that replacement niche?

[/quote']

 

Because my stealth bird, level limit, messenger of peace, grav bind, des lacooda, wave motion cannon deck doesn't need to attack?

 

Except your deck type isn't overextending by having one copy of messenger of peace or gravity bind and one copy of wave motion cannon down on the field.

 

And even if your deck were to add one or two sets to the mix, it can easily be written off as the unique playstyle of the decktype.

 

Furthermore, coming from someone who DOES play such a deck, attacks are, if rare, not nonexistent. This forces you to be conscious of your decision to attack for fear of destroying necessary burn cards.

 

Lastly, such a deck will always be outside the meta, as the second it becomes meta, it is destroyed by the massive pool of S/T destruction cards we have available, as well as the quite large selection of anti-burn cards we have available.

 

Thus, not a problem regardless.

 

 

Now, let's put that aside and look at, say: Zombie. Lightsworn? How about Blackwings? How does Malevolent not manage to serve the same purpose?

 

The point is that if storm doesn't exist then I can and will start playing 2+ copies of messenger of peace and other cards like that because I know the opponent is only going to have one for one removal. This eliminates skill plays from both players and turns the game into a question of who has been able to draw more counters to the other person's play. That is not good for the game.

[The Dark One]

Now' date=' explain to me why Malevolent Catastrophe isn't sufficient to fulfill that replacement niche?

[/quote']

 

Because my stealth bird, level limit, messenger of peace, grav bind, des lacooda, wave motion cannon deck doesn't need to attack?

 

Except your deck type isn't overextending by having one copy of messenger of peace or gravity bind and one copy of wave motion cannon down on the field.

 

And even if your deck were to add one or two sets to the mix, it can easily be written off as the unique playstyle of the decktype.

 

Furthermore, coming from someone who DOES play such a deck, attacks are, if rare, not nonexistent. This forces you to be conscious of your decision to attack for fear of destroying necessary burn cards.

 

Lastly, such a deck will always be outside the meta, as the second it becomes meta, it is destroyed by the massive pool of S/T destruction cards we have available, as well as the quite large selection of anti-burn cards we have available.

 

Thus, not a problem regardless.

 

 

Now, let's put that aside and look at, say: Zombie. Lightsworn? How about Blackwings? How does Malevolent not manage to serve the same purpose?

 

The point is that if storm doesn't exist then I can and will start playing 2+ copies of messenger of peace and other cards like that because I know the opponent is only going to have one for one removal. This eliminates skill plays from both players and turns the game into a question of who has been able to draw more counters to the other person's play. That is not good for the game.

 

Then side in Fairy Wind. ;)

 

The point is, we don't need a perfect solution to the problem. We have an amalgate of imperfect solutions that, in conjunction, keep the problem under control. Your stall deck will see a limited amount of success at first. Then people will realize it has a significant impact on the meta and side or main cards like Fairy Wind, Decree, Jinzo, etc. Your deck is now dead on its feet. It will never actually manage to turn itself into a significant problem.

 

If you're playing a faster, 'meta' deck, like BW, LS, PCZ, you will be A. vulnerable to Malevolent (and yes, that is certainly counterable by a great number of cards, but that's ok. re: imperfect solution) and B. less likely to be playing a deck that can afford to run such a huge number of traps/settable spells.

 

Did I mention Arcanite Magician or Black Rose Dragon?

[HORUS]

At 1.

[RyanAtlus]

We should make a poll in order to have a clear overview on YCM-kun's thoughts on the subject.

[Tempest Dahlia]

3? l will stab you in frustration. Sure, lets activate THREE F*CKING PERMANANT COLD WAVES WITH NO SORT OF REAL RESTRICTIONS!!!!

 

2 is also too much. Technically, heavy is feather dusted dumbed down, and can really piss a jabroni off if he just set that game ending card.

 

1 is great. 1 shot, one chance to make it count, 1 time to end it all. That's fair.

 

0? Burn decks will become meta and, ironically, hell will freeze...

I need not continue the carnage that will take place if it were moved AT ALL from 1.

[RyanAtlus]

Burn meta?

NEVER!

 

I would dislike that!

 

It screws my place in the circle of semi-alternate win conditions!

 

Countdown > Exodia > Burn > Countdown

[Wizarus]

I've thought it over and decided it needed to be banned, for the same reason Imperial Order was banned. It provides instant advantage at little to no effort whatsoever, and the cost is little to non-existant. Same goes for Stardust, Decree(if the meta slows down) and JD.

[daboss144]

I've thought it over and decided it needed to be banned' date=' for the same reason Imperial Order was banned. It provides instant advantage at little to no effort whatsoever, and the cost is little to non-existant. Same goes for Stardust, Decree(if the meta slows down) and JD.

[/quote']

 

What are you talking about??? This entire game is much more interesting due to cards like heavy storm. Without heavy storm, people could just set 5 spell/trap cards their first turn w/o having to worry about all of them getting blown up. I guarantee you without heavy storm the first turn/second turn win ratio would become waaay lopsided.

 

As for stardust, it's a defensive card... and it's cost is 1. at least 2 monsters 2. temporarily remove from game. That's def worth the stoppage of a war chariot or something of the sort. And it doesn't even stop PWWB or Bottomless. It's not even remotely broken. Sure it's good, but it's no DSF.

 

Everyone JD needs to be banned, Decree can't be banned because it's a jinzo without attack or defense. So in theory Jinzo will be banned before decree. Is Jinzo banned yet? No Will it ever be banned? Probably not.

[Lonk]

Heavy Storm shouldn't be banned because using it wrong can be horrible to the user. The reason why people came up with the Forbidden/Limited list is because that n00bs use them without any worry of losing. For example, Harpies' feather duster was put on the forbidden list permenantly because if that became unbanned, n00bs would have access to it and continuously use it with no backfire. Cards like Heavy Storm have some kind of backfire to it that makes it only limited. I could go on with this post forever if we were talking about the Forbidden/Limited list, but all I will say is that Heavy Storm should only remain limited because there are people that use it, and pay the price for it.

[Wizarus]

As stated before, Malevolent Catastrophe can replace Heavy Storm. It's more balanced, and unlike Heavy Storm, it's not instant.

 

Stardust needs to be banned. It's a generic Synrcho version of MBAAS, with little to no effort to achieve, a cost that tributes itself only to be revived once more in a 2500 ATK body. Sure the 2 cards you stated can stop him(with one of them being a minus 1), but you can't justify it not being broken just because it can be stopped. I can almost guarentee Summoner Monk wasn't limited to 1 because of Red Dragon Archfiend.

 

Royal Decree is the exact trap version of Imperial Order. It turns all traps in your opponent's deck into dead draws. It's just because of traps being inferior to spells, and the fact that Decree can't be shut off that it sits at 3. With the Jinzo/Decree argument, look at the Spell Canceller/Imperal Order matchup.

 

The point I'm trying to make is that cards that provide instant advantage with little cost or effort needs to be banned to make the game more balanced.